Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

A thread about when it's okay for cops to shoot people

Posts

Also, from the video, it looks like he wasn't more than 30' away from another pylon in the bridge the rock throwers were hiding under. He could have been there in a few seconds. So for those people saying there was no immediate cover, there was.

He would have had to drag his unrestrained perp with him, who was trying to escape. If the officer had immediately protected himself first and foremost and lost the perp, he would have completely been in dereliction of duty.

Also, from the video, it looks like he wasn't more than 30' away from another pylon in the bridge the rock throwers were hiding under. He could have been there in a few seconds. So for those people saying there was no immediate cover, there was.

Legally, he was justified in the shooting as the kids were threatening to injure him. Three or four teenagers at sixty feet barely qualifies as a threat, but technically it does qualify. I think it was a seriously bad judgment call on the agent's part to respond with deadly force to such a minimal threat, but it was his to make.

I hope, after seeing the sort of judgment calls this guy makes in the field, they take away his gun and put him in a desk job somewhere.

I think it was seriously bad judgment for the teenagers to throw rocks at a law enforcement officer. Or any person with a gun, for that matter. But hey, it was theirs to make.

I hope, after seeing the sort of judgment calls Border Patrol agents make in the field, Mexican teenagers will not throw fucking rocks at our federal agents. That'd be peachy.

Do rocks get more dangerous after five minutes? I mean, he could have miraculously managed to avoid injury for a while before deciding he was in danger, but that raises the question of why it took him so long to decide and why said danger never appeared. If I claimed to have been a target of snipers in Bosnia, yet was shown calmly walking across an exposed area without any injury whatsoever, people are going to say that I wan full of shit.

The danger of each rock thrown remains the same, but yes the danger posed to the officer increases with each rock thrown...right? Pretty sure there'd be an integral involved in there somewhere, and that eventually the probability of serious injury (given enough rocks thrown) would approach 1.

EDIT: Assuming the probability of any given rock causing serious injury is non-zero, which you seem willing to accept. Maybe you're not.

Also, from the video, it looks like he wasn't more than 30' away from another pylon in the bridge the rock throwers were hiding under. He could have been there in a few seconds. So for those people saying there was no immediate cover, there was.

Legally, he was justified in the shooting as the kids were threatening to injure him. Three or four teenagers at sixty feet barely qualifies as a threat, but technically it does qualify. I think it was a seriously bad judgment call on the agent's part to respond with deadly force to such a minimal threat, but it was his to make.

I hope, after seeing the sort of judgment calls this guy makes in the field, they take away his gun and put him in a desk job somewhere.

I think it was seriously bad judgment for the teenagers to throw rocks at a law enforcement officer. Or any person with a gun, for that matter. But hey, it was theirs to make.

I hope, after seeing the sort of judgment calls Border Patrol agents make in the field, Mexican teenagers will not throw fucking rocks at our federal agents. That'd be peachy.

Regardless of whether the rocks were a lethal threat or not, I can't imagine this scenario in any way making Border Patrol Agents' lives any easier. The response so far from Mexico does not seem to be "we totally learned our lesson and won't throw rocks anymore!"

Now, can you show that a 15 year old boy throwing rocks from 60 feet away is in any way, shape, or form a credible threat? You obviously can't, even with the gimme of assuming that the rocks were injuriously large, or you would have already tried.

I dunno. Maybe you should come over and we'll whip big rocks at you, and you can tell us how threatened you feel.

Does he get to point a loaded gun at you in response? We could make a D&D thread about what happens, I'd totally be on the side of "Atomic Ross didn't deserve to get shot!"

I'm pretty sure Scalfin is on the "the cop didn't have to shoot him!" side. So no, no gun for Scalfy. He can, however, drag a resistant and unrestrained suspect 30 feet to some cover if he'd like to while we keep whipping the rocks at him.

Now, can you show that a 15 year old boy throwing rocks from 60 feet away is in any way, shape, or form a credible threat? You obviously can't, even with the gimme of assuming that the rocks were injuriously large, or you would have already tried.

I dunno. Maybe you should come over and we'll whip big rocks at you, and you can tell us how threatened you feel.

Does he get to point a loaded gun at you in response? We could make a D&D thread about what happens, I'd totally be on the side of "Atomic Ross didn't deserve to get shot!"

I'm pretty sure Scalfin is on the "the cop didn't have to shoot him!" side. So no, no gun for Scalfy. He can, however, drag a resistant and unrestrained suspect 30 feet to some cover if he'd like to while we keep whipping the rocks at him.

Do I get to shoot you? I'd yell at you first, so it would be within my rules of engagement.

Also, from the video, it looks like he wasn't more than 30' away from another pylon in the bridge the rock throwers were hiding under. He could have been there in a few seconds. So for those people saying there was no immediate cover, there was.

Legally, he was justified in the shooting as the kids were threatening to injure him. Three or four teenagers at sixty feet barely qualifies as a threat, but technically it does qualify. I think it was a seriously bad judgment call on the agent's part to respond with deadly force to such a minimal threat, but it was his to make.

I hope, after seeing the sort of judgment calls this guy makes in the field, they take away his gun and put him in a desk job somewhere.

I think it was seriously bad judgment for the teenagers to throw rocks at a law enforcement officer. Or any person with a gun, for that matter. But hey, it was theirs to make.

I hope, after seeing the sort of judgment calls Border Patrol agents make in the field, Mexican teenagers will not throw fucking rocks at our federal agents. That'd be peachy.

Regardless of whether the rocks were a lethal threat or not, I can't imagine this scenario in any way making Border Patrol Agents' lives any easier. The response so far from Mexico does not seem to be "we totally learned our lesson and won't throw rocks anymore!"

kid was 14. You don't shoot kids. I don't care if you take a rock to the face, don't shoot little kids.

Ever?

Want to go down this road?

EDIT: Also, unless you're the one volunteering to get hit in the face with rocks by little kids (or shot by little kids, or blown up by little kids), you might want to consider just not posting any more on the subject.

I hope, after seeing the sort of judgment calls Border Patrol agents make in the field, Mexican teenagers will not throw fucking rocks at our federal agents. That'd be peachy.

Regardless of whether the rocks were a lethal threat or not, I can't imagine this scenario in any way making Border Patrol Agents' lives any easier. The response so far from Mexico does not seem to be "we totally learned our lesson and won't throw rocks anymore!"

Shoot more of them. They'll figure it out eventually.

I think this more or less summarizes the entire thread, and I'll let your final response stand alone without commentary, it does not justify a rebuttal.

Also, from the video, it looks like he wasn't more than 30' away from another pylon in the bridge the rock throwers were hiding under. He could have been there in a few seconds. So for those people saying there was no immediate cover, there was.

Legally, he was justified in the shooting as the kids were threatening to injure him. Three or four teenagers at sixty feet barely qualifies as a threat, but technically it does qualify. I think it was a seriously bad judgment call on the agent's part to respond with deadly force to such a minimal threat, but it was his to make.

I hope, after seeing the sort of judgment calls this guy makes in the field, they take away his gun and put him in a desk job somewhere.

I think it was seriously bad judgment for the teenagers to throw rocks at a law enforcement officer. Or any person with a gun, for that matter. But hey, it was theirs to make.

I hope, after seeing the sort of judgment calls Border Patrol agents make in the field, Mexican teenagers will not throw fucking rocks at our federal agents. That'd be peachy.

Was that a rebuttal? My view is that the Border Patrol agent made a bad call. You're supposed to give your reasons why the agent made a good judgment call given the minimal threat the kid or kids who were throwing rocks represented. All you said are that teenagers are stupid. That's nothing new. I think the Agent also made a dumb call. That is new because Border Patrol agents are supposed to, on average, not make bad calls like this.

You know, my best friend had rocks thrown at him in Iraq. It kind of scares me that if it were a few of you in his position, dozens of stupid angry children would be lying face down to a barrage of machinegun fire rather than firing warning shots into the air which effectively disperse most such crowds

I'm usually pretty progressive when it comes to our stance on immigration enforcement (including border enforcement). I also like to think I have a pretty healthy skepticism when it comes to police, particularly regarding uses of force. I mean, feel free to go through my posting history on the subject(s) and suggest otherwise, I'd be interested.

But seriously, I think there are some people here who just have a knee-jerk reaction to things like this. Whether it's the use of force itself, the age of the target, or the idea that sometimes force used in response to force isn't (or can't be) proportional...they just wouldn't accept this situation given any set of circumstances, except maybe the kid actually having a gun.

Also, great use of logic with the rocks bit. "He held his hand out to me. Hands can cause injury." "He sneezed toward me. Sneezes can spread fatal disease." It's almost as precious as your use of the slipper slope argument to show that any chance of injury justifies shooting somebody in your mind.

Hey, way to equate sneezing with making an active decision to intentionally take an aggressive action unlawfully against another human being that could easily lead to their injury (even serious injury).

I mean, speaking of great uses of logic.

Sneezing can cause injury. What level of injury is the officer supposed to allow himself to be subjected to before his use of deadly force is appropriate? Only death? Loss of an eye? Brain damage? Lost tooth? Please, lay it out for me. I want to know just what level of injury somebody is allowed to inflict on an agent in your world before he's allowed to use the most effective means he has to defend himself.

The fact of the matter is that your argument is equally applicable to rocks and sneezing. That it is ridiculous is the entire point. You said that something can cause injury, so any action involving that thing can cause injury. Now, can you show that a 15 year old boy throwing rocks from 60 feet away is in any way, shape, or form a credible threat? You obviously can't, even with the gimme of assuming that the rocks were injuriously large, or you would have already tried.

First, I'd love an explanation of how sneezing is going to cause any serious or permanent injury to another person. I suppose they may have some fatal communicable disease, is that what you're getting at?

Second, intent matters. When another person is intentionally assaulting me, that's definitely different from a sneeze. At least any sneeze not intentionally aimed at me with the hope of transmitting a fatal communicable disease.

Third, I thought that any reasonably intelligent human being reading my post would understand that we were talking in the context of one person intentionally assaulting another, not holding a hand out or sneezing. Apparently I was wrong. Well, that or you're....well....yeah.

EDIT: Oh, and if I determined that a person was intentionally trying to sneeze on me knowing they had a fatal (or just permanent and debilitating) communicable disease? I'd have zero problem shooting them to stop them.

Oh, so something's only a threat if it's meant as a threat? I'll have to tell that to all the people who let themselves be buried under the false assumption that they died in traffic accidents. Hell, can you even show that throwing the rock was intended to be an attack rather than a show of defiance?

You argument was that the incident involved x, that x can cause injury, so this incident could cause injury. To put it in formal logic:
This incident involved a rock
Some incidents involving rocks cause injury
Therefor, this incident must have caused injury

To use the same logic:
This incident involved a sneeze
Some incidents involving sneezes impart fatal diseases
Therefor, this incident must have imparted a fatal disease

You have completely failed to show that this use of a rock could have caused injury, just like how you complain that I failed to show that a given case of sneezing would impart a fatal disease.

Also, from the video, it looks like he wasn't more than 30' away from another pylon in the bridge the rock throwers were hiding under. He could have been there in a few seconds. So for those people saying there was no immediate cover, there was.

Legally, he was justified in the shooting as the kids were threatening to injure him. Three or four teenagers at sixty feet barely qualifies as a threat, but technically it does qualify. I think it was a seriously bad judgment call on the agent's part to respond with deadly force to such a minimal threat, but it was his to make.

I hope, after seeing the sort of judgment calls this guy makes in the field, they take away his gun and put him in a desk job somewhere.

I think it was seriously bad judgment for the teenagers to throw rocks at a law enforcement officer. Or any person with a gun, for that matter. But hey, it was theirs to make.

I hope, after seeing the sort of judgment calls Border Patrol agents make in the field, Mexican teenagers will not throw fucking rocks at our federal agents. That'd be peachy.

Regardless of whether the rocks were a lethal threat or not, I can't imagine this scenario in any way making Border Patrol Agents' lives any easier. The response so far from Mexico does not seem to be "we totally learned our lesson and won't throw rocks anymore!"

You know, my best friend had rocks thrown at him in Iraq. It kind of scares me that if it were a few of you in his position, dozens of stupid angry children would be lying face down to a barrage of machinegun fire rather than firing warning shots into the air which effectively disperse most such crowds

I found that Iraqi children respond quite quickly to having an M-16 pointed at them. Adults too, obviously.

Maybe Iraqis are just smarter than Mexicans. I don't know.

If they kept chucking masonry, though? Yeah, eventually they might get shot. Depends if I started feeling my safety (or that of my fellow soldiers) was threatened.

kid was 14. You don't shoot kids. I don't care if you take a rock to the face, don't shoot little kids.

Ever?

Want to go down this road?

EDIT: Also, unless you're the one volunteering to get hit in the face with rocks by little kids (or shot by little kids, or blown up by little kids), you might want to consider just not posting any more on the subject.

I would rather die than kill a child armed with nothing more than a rock. I am an adult.

No even if the kid shot first you'd hear "but he coulda ran away, could have arrested him, could have taken cover". There is a certain portion of our society that just hates the cops, agents, and the military. It's rather nasty and well... it's part of a certain political spectrum at that. Those people are just out there to die and have no reason to defend themselves, ever, and if they do... off with their head!

You know, my best friend had rocks thrown at him in Iraq. It kind of scares me that if it were a few of you in his position, dozens of stupid angry children would be lying face down to a barrage of machinegun fire rather than firing warning shots into the air which effectively disperse most such crowds

I found that Iraqi children respond quite quickly to having an M-16 pointed at them. Adults too, obviously.

Maybe Iraqis are just smarter than Mexicans. I don't know.

If they kept chucking masonry, though? Yeah, eventually they might get shot. Depends if I started feeling my safety (or that of my fellow soldiers) was threatened.

Also, great use of logic with the rocks bit. "He held his hand out to me. Hands can cause injury." "He sneezed toward me. Sneezes can spread fatal disease." It's almost as precious as your use of the slipper slope argument to show that any chance of injury justifies shooting somebody in your mind.

Hey, way to equate sneezing with making an active decision to intentionally take an aggressive action unlawfully against another human being that could easily lead to their injury (even serious injury).

I mean, speaking of great uses of logic.

Sneezing can cause injury. What level of injury is the officer supposed to allow himself to be subjected to before his use of deadly force is appropriate? Only death? Loss of an eye? Brain damage? Lost tooth? Please, lay it out for me. I want to know just what level of injury somebody is allowed to inflict on an agent in your world before he's allowed to use the most effective means he has to defend himself.

The fact of the matter is that your argument is equally applicable to rocks and sneezing. That it is ridiculous is the entire point. You said that something can cause injury, so any action involving that thing can cause injury. Now, can you show that a 15 year old boy throwing rocks from 60 feet away is in any way, shape, or form a credible threat? You obviously can't, even with the gimme of assuming that the rocks were injuriously large, or you would have already tried.

First, I'd love an explanation of how sneezing is going to cause any serious or permanent injury to another person. I suppose they may have some fatal communicable disease, is that what you're getting at?

Second, intent matters. When another person is intentionally assaulting me, that's definitely different from a sneeze. At least any sneeze not intentionally aimed at me with the hope of transmitting a fatal communicable disease.

Third, I thought that any reasonably intelligent human being reading my post would understand that we were talking in the context of one person intentionally assaulting another, not holding a hand out or sneezing. Apparently I was wrong. Well, that or you're....well....yeah.

EDIT: Oh, and if I determined that a person was intentionally trying to sneeze on me knowing they had a fatal (or just permanent and debilitating) communicable disease? I'd have zero problem shooting them to stop them.

Oh, so something's only a threat if it's meant as a threat? I'll have to tell that to all the people who let themselves be buried under the false assumption that they died in traffic accidents. Hell, can you even show that throwing the rock was intended to be an attack rather than a show of defiance?

It's an assault either way.

You argument was that the incident involved x, that x can cause injury, so this incident could cause injury. To put it in formal logic:
This incident involved a rockSome incidents involving rocks cause injury
Therefor, this incident must have caused injury

To use the same logic:
This incident involved a sneeze
Some incidents involving sneezes impart fatal diseases
Therefor, this incident must have imparted a fatal disease

You have completely failed to show that this use of a rock could have caused injury, just like how you complain that I failed to show that a given case of sneezing would impart a fatal disease.

I mean, if you're going to be a twat, try and get your argument right.

EDIT: I mean, if some cats are white, and I own a cat, that doesn't imply that it must be white...right? I've not taken any liberal arts logic classes, but I took plenty on the digital logic side and this doesn't seem to work.

kid was 14. You don't shoot kids. I don't care if you take a rock to the face, don't shoot little kids.

Ever?

Want to go down this road?

EDIT: Also, unless you're the one volunteering to get hit in the face with rocks by little kids (or shot by little kids, or blown up by little kids), you might want to consider just not posting any more on the subject.

I would rather die than kill a child armed with nothing more than a rock. I am an adult.

kid was 14. You don't shoot kids. I don't care if you take a rock to the face, don't shoot little kids.

Ever?

Want to go down this road?

EDIT: Also, unless you're the one volunteering to get hit in the face with rocks by little kids (or shot by little kids, or blown up by little kids), you might want to consider just not posting any more on the subject.

I would rather die than kill a child armed with nothing more than a rock. I am an adult.

What horrible irony it would be if you were killed by a rock thrown by a child.

And really, 15? 15 ain't a "child." Half the Hispanic 15-year olds I see at work are parents.

You know, my best friend had rocks thrown at him in Iraq. It kind of scares me that if it were a few of you in his position, dozens of stupid angry children would be lying face down to a barrage of machinegun fire rather than firing warning shots into the air which effectively disperse most such crowds

I found that Iraqi children respond quite quickly to having an M-16 pointed at them. Adults too, obviously.

Maybe Iraqis are just smarter than Mexicans. I don't know.

If they kept chucking masonry, though? Yeah, eventually they might get shot. Depends if I started feeling my safety (or that of my fellow soldiers) was threatened.

No even if the kid shot first you'd hear "but he coulda ran away, could have arrested him, could have taken cover". There is a certain portion of our society that just hates the cops, agents, and the military. It's rather nasty and well... it's part of a certain political spectrum at that. Those people are just out there to die and have no reason to defend themselves, ever, and if they do... off with their head!

kid was 14. You don't shoot kids. I don't care if you take a rock to the face, don't shoot little kids.

Ever?

Want to go down this road?

EDIT: Also, unless you're the one volunteering to get hit in the face with rocks by little kids (or shot by little kids, or blown up by little kids), you might want to consider just not posting any more on the subject.

I would rather die than kill a child armed with nothing more than a rock. I am an adult.

What horrible irony it would be if you were killed by a rock thrown by a child.

And really, 15? 15 ain't a "child." Half the Hispanic 15-year olds I see at work are parents.

Oh I forgot, white people are kids if they're 15, messicans are adults

kid was 14. You don't shoot kids. I don't care if you take a rock to the face, don't shoot little kids.

Ever?

Want to go down this road?

EDIT: Also, unless you're the one volunteering to get hit in the face with rocks by little kids (or shot by little kids, or blown up by little kids), you might want to consider just not posting any more on the subject.

I would rather die than kill a child armed with nothing more than a rock. I am an adult.

What horrible irony it would be if you were killed by a rock thrown by a child.

And really, 15? 15 ain't a "child." Half the Hispanic 15-year olds I see at work are parents.

Oh I forgot, white people are kids if they're 15, messicans are adults

Actually, he was only talking about Mexicans in terms of teen pregnancy rates. Which I'd be unsurprised to find that their teen pregnancy rates are higher. His "15 ain't a 'child'" comment was race-neutral.

Now, can you show that a 15 year old boy throwing rocks from 60 feet away is in any way, shape, or form a credible threat? You obviously can't, even with the gimme of assuming that the rocks were injuriously large, or you would have already tried.

I dunno. Maybe you should come over and we'll whip big rocks at you, and you can tell us how threatened you feel.

Does he get to point a loaded gun at you in response? We could make a D&D thread about what happens, I'd totally be on the side of "Atomic Ross didn't deserve to get shot!"

I'm pretty sure Scalfin is on the "the cop didn't have to shoot him!" side. So no, no gun for Scalfy. He can, however, drag a resistant and unrestrained suspect 30 feet to some cover if he'd like to while we keep whipping the rocks at him.

Nice dodge. Now, do you feel that I'd be justified in shooting you if you were throwing rocks from three meters short of the winning shot put at the latest Olympics, or am I only allowed to shoot Hispanics?

No even if the kid shot first you'd hear "but he coulda ran away, could have arrested him, could have taken cover". There is a certain portion of our society that just hates the cops, agents, and the military. It's rather nasty and well... it's part of a certain political spectrum at that. Those people are just out there to die and have no reason to defend themselves, ever, and if they do... off with their head!

Please stop strawmanning.

People have made those exact arguments here...

So no, not a strawman. And since a section of our society has known to value the lives of cops and soldiers less then that of anybody else, it's a concern.

Also, great use of logic with the rocks bit. "He held his hand out to me. Hands can cause injury." "He sneezed toward me. Sneezes can spread fatal disease." It's almost as precious as your use of the slipper slope argument to show that any chance of injury justifies shooting somebody in your mind.

Hey, way to equate sneezing with making an active decision to intentionally take an aggressive action unlawfully against another human being that could easily lead to their injury (even serious injury).

I mean, speaking of great uses of logic.

Sneezing can cause injury. What level of injury is the officer supposed to allow himself to be subjected to before his use of deadly force is appropriate? Only death? Loss of an eye? Brain damage? Lost tooth? Please, lay it out for me. I want to know just what level of injury somebody is allowed to inflict on an agent in your world before he's allowed to use the most effective means he has to defend himself.

The fact of the matter is that your argument is equally applicable to rocks and sneezing. That it is ridiculous is the entire point. You said that something can cause injury, so any action involving that thing can cause injury. Now, can you show that a 15 year old boy throwing rocks from 60 feet away is in any way, shape, or form a credible threat? You obviously can't, even with the gimme of assuming that the rocks were injuriously large, or you would have already tried.

First, I'd love an explanation of how sneezing is going to cause any serious or permanent injury to another person. I suppose they may have some fatal communicable disease, is that what you're getting at?

Second, intent matters. When another person is intentionally assaulting me, that's definitely different from a sneeze. At least any sneeze not intentionally aimed at me with the hope of transmitting a fatal communicable disease.

Third, I thought that any reasonably intelligent human being reading my post would understand that we were talking in the context of one person intentionally assaulting another, not holding a hand out or sneezing. Apparently I was wrong. Well, that or you're....well....yeah.

EDIT: Oh, and if I determined that a person was intentionally trying to sneeze on me knowing they had a fatal (or just permanent and debilitating) communicable disease? I'd have zero problem shooting them to stop them.

Oh, so something's only a threat if it's meant as a threat? I'll have to tell that to all the people who let themselves be buried under the false assumption that they died in traffic accidents. Hell, can you even show that throwing the rock was intended to be an attack rather than a show of defiance?

It's an assault either way.

You argument was that the incident involved x, that x can cause injury, so this incident could cause injury. To put it in formal logic:
This incident involved a rockSome incidents involving rocks cause injury
Therefor, this incident must have caused injury

To use the same logic:
This incident involved a sneeze
Some incidents involving sneezes impart fatal diseases
Therefor, this incident must have imparted a fatal disease

You have completely failed to show that this use of a rock could have caused injury, just like how you complain that I failed to show that a given case of sneezing would impart a fatal disease.

I mean, if you're going to be a twat, try and get your argument right.

This? This whole thing here? This is pretty dumb. The guy from Customs and Border Protection said the threat had to be immediate. The whole sneezing met by lethal force thing is completely silly and irrelevant

Oh I forgot, white people are kids if they're 15, messicans are adults

The point being made was that a child with a rock posed no legitimate threat. Fifteen is hardly the age of a child incapable of physically harming someone, and choosing to frame it that way is intentionally dishonest.

Now, can you show that a 15 year old boy throwing rocks from 60 feet away is in any way, shape, or form a credible threat? You obviously can't, even with the gimme of assuming that the rocks were injuriously large, or you would have already tried.

I dunno. Maybe you should come over and we'll whip big rocks at you, and you can tell us how threatened you feel.

Does he get to point a loaded gun at you in response? We could make a D&D thread about what happens, I'd totally be on the side of "Atomic Ross didn't deserve to get shot!"

I'm pretty sure Scalfin is on the "the cop didn't have to shoot him!" side. So no, no gun for Scalfy. He can, however, drag a resistant and unrestrained suspect 30 feet to some cover if he'd like to while we keep whipping the rocks at him.

Nice dodge. Now, do you feel that I'd be justified in shooting you if you were throwing rocks from three meters short of the winning shot put at the latest Olympics, or am I only allowed to shoot Hispanics?

A rock isn't a shot put there boss, it's not even close to the same thing.

Also, great use of logic with the rocks bit. "He held his hand out to me. Hands can cause injury." "He sneezed toward me. Sneezes can spread fatal disease." It's almost as precious as your use of the slipper slope argument to show that any chance of injury justifies shooting somebody in your mind.

Hey, way to equate sneezing with making an active decision to intentionally take an aggressive action unlawfully against another human being that could easily lead to their injury (even serious injury).

I mean, speaking of great uses of logic.

Sneezing can cause injury. What level of injury is the officer supposed to allow himself to be subjected to before his use of deadly force is appropriate? Only death? Loss of an eye? Brain damage? Lost tooth? Please, lay it out for me. I want to know just what level of injury somebody is allowed to inflict on an agent in your world before he's allowed to use the most effective means he has to defend himself.

The fact of the matter is that your argument is equally applicable to rocks and sneezing. That it is ridiculous is the entire point. You said that something can cause injury, so any action involving that thing can cause injury. Now, can you show that a 15 year old boy throwing rocks from 60 feet away is in any way, shape, or form a credible threat? You obviously can't, even with the gimme of assuming that the rocks were injuriously large, or you would have already tried.

First, I'd love an explanation of how sneezing is going to cause any serious or permanent injury to another person. I suppose they may have some fatal communicable disease, is that what you're getting at?

Second, intent matters. When another person is intentionally assaulting me, that's definitely different from a sneeze. At least any sneeze not intentionally aimed at me with the hope of transmitting a fatal communicable disease.

Third, I thought that any reasonably intelligent human being reading my post would understand that we were talking in the context of one person intentionally assaulting another, not holding a hand out or sneezing. Apparently I was wrong. Well, that or you're....well....yeah.

EDIT: Oh, and if I determined that a person was intentionally trying to sneeze on me knowing they had a fatal (or just permanent and debilitating) communicable disease? I'd have zero problem shooting them to stop them.

Oh, so something's only a threat if it's meant as a threat? I'll have to tell that to all the people who let themselves be buried under the false assumption that they died in traffic accidents. Hell, can you even show that throwing the rock was intended to be an attack rather than a show of defiance?

It's an assault either way.

You argument was that the incident involved x, that x can cause injury, so this incident could cause injury. To put it in formal logic:
This incident involved a rockSome incidents involving rocks cause injury
Therefor, this incident must have caused injury

To use the same logic:
This incident involved a sneeze
Some incidents involving sneezes impart fatal diseases
Therefor, this incident must have imparted a fatal disease

You have completely failed to show that this use of a rock could have caused injury, just like how you complain that I failed to show that a given case of sneezing would impart a fatal disease.

I mean, if you're going to be a twat, try and get your argument right.

EDIT: I mean, if some cats are white, and I own a cat, that doesn't imply that it must be white...right? I've not taken any liberal arts logic classes, but I took plenty on the digital logic side and this doesn't seem to work.

Nice dodge. Now, do you feel that I'd be justified in shooting you if you were throwing rocks from three meters short of the winning shot put at the latest Olympics, or am I only allowed to shoot Hispanics?

As a former collegiate shot-putter, I have to wonder if you know how little distance that is.